The website 24/7 Wall St. created this analysis to reveal the models with consistent quality problems and poor safety scores. All of the vehicles scored poorly in one area or another in crash testing, typically side or rear impact tests. They all scored badly in rollover testing, except the Jeep Wrangler.

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

"then pour out the most dangerous vehicle on the road today: The Ram pickup truck."
Correction: the 2012 model with the lowest safety rating (according to 24/7 Wall St.). To say that this or any of the vehicles on that list are actually "dangerous" is just silly, but then again, nothing gets publicity better than trying to scare the public.

It is also true for most of their husbands, who still harbor a romantic vision of their carefree adventurous days when they drove across Africa or Lapland in a Land Rover (which, they conveniently seem to forget, had a modest-hp engine and narrow tires mounted on STEEL wheels).

My 1st new vehicle was a Jeep Wrangler, which I drove for 20 years. My 2nd new vehicle was a Jeep Wrangler, which I've enjoyed for the past 5 years. Guess what? As long as they continue to make them, I will never own anything but a Jeep Wrangler. (Actually, the most dangerous vehicle on the road is a motorcycle.) But fortunately, this is still America, so you can pick whichever vehicle you want. For me, I'm willing to sacrifice some safety for FUN. If safety is the most important thing, you could also spend your whole life in a bomb shelter, to protect you from all the dangers in the world. And that would be the best of all situations. Or would it?

[blocked]

The ban is on soda containers that are too big...the ban doesn't do anything with regualr soda bottles, just with the "supersize" containers.
I am a New Yorker and I support the ban. Obesity is becoming a serious problem, and we as Americans, the fattest nation on Earth, need to do everything we can to stop it. Already over two-thirds of Americans are overweight.

I'm so confused by this report.
Where are the actual stats to back these ratings up? They reference IIHS and NHTSA data and JD Power Initial Quality Ratings, but don't say how the data was compiled or used, and then quote it in strange ways.
Every car on this list probably has some legitimate problem with it safety-wise, but I'm confused as to how they use their data. They quote it in lists at the top of each blurb, but don't show why one car is worse than another, or how the numbers were used.
Take the Ram, for instance, they quote the IIHS and NHTSA safety tests of the 1998-2001 trucks, but don't say anything about the 1981-1997 or 2002+ trucks. What of those?
If the Ram is the most dangerous vehicle in America, tell me why each and every one is dangerous! Don't give me a small slice of the model's production years and then tell me that the model itself the most dangerous vehicle in America.
They've made the Ram as a Ram since 1981, does this mean every Ram truck from 1981-2012 is the most dangerous vehicle in America? I can't tell you, because despite the fact that the article labels it as such, they don't tell me!
This is the problem with online journalism. Some "writer" on a website can compile some data from some other websites, throw it up on a web page with a very grim title, and some site I've never heard of called "24/7wallst.com" is suddenly getting tons of traffic because they labeled a model that lots of people drive as "Most Dangerous Car in America" with little actual backing to do so (or if they have it, they haven't shown me!).
If this was a newspaper or TV journalism piece, it would have more research shown, more numbers, would back up its facts, and would explain its methods. Instead, this is just a piece of fluff writing with a scary title that has made numerous people read it.

"In God we trust, all others bring data." (sorry, don't know the author of that quote). Brilliant point, Ryan! No one questions the news media and asks for data. This is why people think they are informed when they actually are not.

After the shocking headline, and some loose references to possible credible (and some suspicious) sources, no meat on the bone facts to back up the accusation. How about an official stat, a direct quote to back this up fella? Anyone can make an accusation, but with out real data, it's just spitting into the wind. Failboat.

I don't know of any vehicles that would score "good" in rollover testing, unless they have a good "rollbar" installed, and I believe Jeep has that if I'm not mistaken. Likewise I don't know of to many vehicles that would score well in headons, or side impacts except maybe a Volvo. To label Dodge Ram as the most "dangerous" vehicle out there is an outrage, and Chrysler should take issue with this report! I don't think any "one" vehicle is the most dangerous, I think "all vehicles" have a certain degree of danger built into them, and you are not 100% safe in ANY of them! Just take a look at all the "safety equipment" Dale Earnhart had in his race car,....but he still got killed in an accident.

"From 1998 through 2001, the truck received failing marks from IIHS in frontal offset tests, and was rated “poor” in protecting heads and left legs, as well as in restraining the crash test dummy. Though frontal offset ratings have since received “good” ratings from the IIHS, the vehicle’s side-impact and rollover ratings remain substandard. Curiously, it was the opposite in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests. The agency found fault with the Ram’s performance on frontal impact tests but not with side impact tests.
Read more: The Most Dangerous Cars in America - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/05/29/the-most-dangerous-cars-in-america/#ixzz1wSDAuWGJ"
From the article there is conflicting crash test data and they specifically mention a truck that is over 15 years old in design at this point. SHAME on you Autoblog for posting a picture of a 2012 in light of this article, and shame on your for posting this article at all. It's completely devoid of much factual information and is a shoddy excuse for journalism, at best.
Keep this garbage over on HuffPo where the car hating liberals can salivate over it all day.

If you read the Wall Street article on their website, they're citing data from 1998 - 2001 that list certain impact areas on the Ram 1500 as "poor". How the hell is this relevant? That was from 11 years ago!

Still immaterial. I highly doubt this faulty article is going to send owners of allegedly unsafe vehicles scurrying to ditch them, as anyone who owns a 10.6 year-old vehicle either isn't able to replace it or just doesn't feel like inclined to. Alternatively, those considering older vehicles can't be overly choosy about safety largely because the relevent technology is largely set in since-supplemented and/or obsoleted standards.